Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (MILK MARKETING SCHEME).

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now received the further Report of the Committee of Investigation on the complaints made by the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation regarding the operation of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme and, if so, what is the nature of the Committee's recommendations and what action he proposes to take?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Report of the Investigation Committee was submitted to me on Monday. After studying its terms, I yesterday arranged to meet representatives of interested parties next Tuesday. With my hon. Friend's permission, I propose to circulate a summary of the Committee's findings in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the Minister find it possible to arrange to have the action of the summonses which have been issued delayed pending the result of this investigation?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir, I cannot give any undertaking on that point.

Mr. WALLACE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: Speaking from memory and at short notice, I think that I am prohibited from taking such action on that point, but I will take further opportunity of looking into my powers.

Captain SHAW: Will the report be published in full?

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. I am publishing the findings of the Committee.
Following is the summary:
It will be recalled that in their interim report in July (summarised in reply to a Question in Parliament on the 25th July), the Investigation Committee proposed that the parties should discuss ways and means of securing a temporary alleviation of the effect of the scheme on level producers.
These discussions took place and certain proposals were formulated by the Board and submitted to the Committee.
The Board's principal proposals were:

(1) That a premium of 2d. a gallon should be given to level producers during the month of March to August, 1935, in respect of a certain basic quantity of milk; or alternatively that the standard price should be varied so as to give higher returns for winter production.
(2) That six additional haulage centres should be provided in the Eastern district.
(3) That powers should be given to the Board to enable them to discourage excessive production if necessary.
(4) That the contribution required from producer retailers should be calculated on the basis of cow-stock instead of on that of milk sales.

The Committee's specific finding, after hearing evidence from the parties, is that it is contrary to the interests of the complainants and not in the public interest that no effort should be made to mitigate the loss inflicted by the operation of the scheme upon level producers in general and in particular in the East of Scotland.
Accordingly, so that some provision should be made for alleviating the effect of the scheme upon the said producers in order to enable them if they so wish, to adjust their systems of dairying to meet the changed conditions under the scheme, the Committee unanimously recommend the adoption of the second alternative in the Board's first proposal, and the adoption of the second and fourth proposals. As regards haulage centres, they propose that the Board should be enabled to alter
the centres prescribed from time to time should changed conditions make that advisable.
With one dissentient they also support the third proposal.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW BILL.

Order for Committee read.

The following Notices of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert a provision relating to the disregarding of any weekly payments by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation and to extend such provision to Scotland and to Northern Ireland."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert a provision relating to relief by way of loan to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in respect of this provision." —[Mr. Buchanan.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given careful consideration to the Instruction standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and have come to the conclusion that it is out of order. Apart from that portion of it which proposes to extend the provisions of this Bill to Northern Ireland which, of course, would be out of order, if the Instruction were accepted and the consequential Amendments made to the Bill, the title of the Bill could, it is true, be amended, but I have to take into consideration not only the title of the Bill, but the declared intention of the Bill as it was when this House gave it a Second Reading. I have carefully studied the reports of the speeches both of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when introducing the Bill and of the Minister of Health in making a reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, and it is quite clear that the Bill is one to bring the English law into conformity with the existing Scottish law. If I allowed the Instruction, I should be allowing the House to consider in Committee a Bill which was not the same Bill as that to which the House had given a Second Reading.

11.9 a.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is true that this English Bill is intended to bring our law into line with the Scottish Bill which was passed by this House a little time ago. The Scottish Act from which
this Bill derives was brought before the House because of difficulties which had arisen on questions affecting unemployed persons, and the Poor Law was amended to bring the law of Scotland into line with the law in regard to the treatment of persons receiving transitional payments. They did that in the Scottish Act in all respects except one, that of workmen's compensation. Our view was that as that Act had an earlier history than the English Bill, we should be justified in asking the Government to widen the scope of the Bill in order to include the one consideration which was left out of the Scottish Act when it was before the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Bill that we considered the other night and to which this House gave a Second Reading was only concerned with bringing the English law into complete conformity with the existing Scottish law. If I had allowed any other consideration to be brought before the House, the Debate might have been considerably prolonged, as no doubt many hon. Members would have liked to take part in it. As it was, this Bill is that to which the House gave a Second Reading. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, in conformity with the practice of this House, to allow an Instruction of this sort would make the Bill a different one from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. In regard to the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I am quite clear that it would be unnecessary, because he can move his Amendment without that Instruction.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 20 Geo. 5. c. 17. s. 48.)

11.11 a.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to add:
(6) Where a person to whom the council of a county or county borough have afforded outdoor relief shows to the satisfaction of the Minister that the council, in affording such relief, have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of this section, then such person shall be entitled to recover from the council such sum as the Minister may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to such person
and the relief which he would have received had the council duly complied with the provisions of this section.
The point of the Amendment is to provide for an agreed procedure in respect of a decision of a county council or county borough where they have given a decision which involves a person in certain disabilities. The person would be provided with an appeal from a decision of the county council or county borough to the Minister. The particular difficulty which we have in mind is indicated in the last portion of the Amendment in which the Minister may certify the difference in amount between the relief afforded to such person and the relief which the person would have received had the council duly complied with the provisions of this section. The principle of the Amendment is clear. We seek to guarantee to the person concerned—the appellant, I call him for the time being—the right of appeal to the Minister from the decision of the local authority. The proposition is so simple, so elementary and so eminently just that I am quite sure that the Minister will speedily rise to accept it, and I submit it for his consideration.

11.14 a.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am truly sorry to disappoint the incurable optimism of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), but I do not think he really expects the Government to accept this Amendment. He proposes to introduce a revolution into the basic idea of our administration of public assistance, and I think he will, on consideration, come to the conclusion that, apart from its general merits, it is unsatisfactory in the manner in which it would work. The effect of the Amendment would be to introduce a right of appeal from the public assistance body to the Minister in the case of one only of the considerations which should be present to the minds of the public assistance authority in arriving at their decision as to the amount of the relief. A grave objection to the proposal, sufficient really to lead the Committee to reject it without further consideration, is the extremely unsatisfactory position which would be produced if there were a right of appeal in the case of only a very small part of.the question decided by the public assistance committee, without any alteration of the general position.
I think, therefore, that, if this question is going to be considered seriously by the Committee, it should be considered in another Bill on a much wider scale.
On the general merits of the position I do not think the Committee will be in any doubt. The root idea of our system of public assistance administration is that the amount of relief required is to be decided in close relation to the circumstances, in the exercise of full discretion by the authorities who are practically in touch with the case, and in consideration of its human aspects. For that reason we have always jealously protected public assistance authorities from any Ministerial interference, and I should be most reluctant to see any weakening of that principle. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will riot press this Amendment to a Bill introduced for certain limited purposes, because it would really take the Bill too far beyond those purposes, and would not, I think, be justified on the merits.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: This Bill has been introduced in order to
amend the enactments relating to the relief of the poor in England and Wales so as to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in the provisions relating to the disregarding of sick pay, maternity benefit, and wounds or disability pensions.
The purpose is, as has been stated in the House, to bring the Poor Law administration in England into line with the Poor Law administration in Scotland, as amended by the recent Poor Law (Scotland) Act. One of the points of amendment in the administration in Scotland was that maternity benefit, the first 5s. of sick pay from a friendly society or trade union, the first 7s. 6d. of National Health Insurance benefit, and the first 20s. of any wound or disability pension, were to be disregarded by the public assistance committee in Scotland. The Scottish Standing Committee accepted an Amendment providing that, where a public assistance committee did not disregard any of these benefits, but took them into consideration when assessing the amount of the public assistance that was to be received, thereby reducing the amount which would be received, and where an appeal was made to the Department and the Department agreed that these amounts had not been disregarded
by the public assistance committee, the individual who was in receipt of public assistance must be paid back in respect of those amounts over the weeks in which the public assistance committee had not taken them into account. In other words, it brought into the Poor Law administration in Scotland a new feature. The Minister shakes his head, but it means that, where the Department agree that any amount which has not been paid and ought to have been paid by the public assistance committee, having regard to these benefits, must be paid. The particular provision—namely, Sub-section (2) of Section 11—of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, which came into force on the 1st September, 1934, reads as follows:
Where a person to whom a local authority have afforded outdoor relief shows to the satisfaction of the Department that the authority in affording such relief have failed in any respect to comply with the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section"—
that is the one relating to the benefits which have to be disregarded in assessing the amount of the relief—
then, not withstanding anything in Section 75 of the principal Act, he shall be entitled to recover from the authority such sum as the Department may certify to be the difference in amount between the relief afforded to him and the relief which he would have received had the authority duly complied with the provisions of the said Sub-section.
I submit that it is perfectly clear that, if any amount is deducted from a person's public assistance because he has been receiving these benefits or pension, and if the Department certify that these deductions ought not to have been made, the Department can give instructions that the amount which has been deducted from his public assistance shall be paid to him in respect of the weeks when it was deducted. That is the purpose of the present Amendment, and that was the purpose of those of us who moved and 'supported the Amendment in the Scottish Standing Committee, which was accepted by the House when the Bill came before it on Report and Third Reading. If it be the desire to make the present Bill uniform with the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, this proposal must be accepted as well, so as to give to those who are in receipt of public assistance in England the same right of appeal where they are in receipt of such benefits or pension, and the same
right to receive the back money which has been deducted from their relief by the public assistance committee.
If the Minister will not accept the present Amendment, which seeks to embody in the Bill the purpose already embodied in the Poor Law (Scotland) Act and already being administered there, I would ask him if he will go into the matter and see on Report whether, in this omission from the Bill, an injustice is not being perpetrated upon those who at the present time are applying for public assistance and who are in receipt of the benefits mentioned in the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, and whether he will frame suitable words to give to these people the same rights as are given in Scotland under the new Act.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like the Minister to reconsider the matter. The purpose of the Bill is to some extent to bring the law in England into conformity with that in Scotland. In the Scottish Standing Committee I moved an Amendment to provide that, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Department that these exemptions have not been carried out by the local authority, the applicant shall be entitled to recover arrears of payment. The Amendment was slightly altered and put into proper legal form and was accepted by the Committee. One of the difficulties we found in Scotland was that, if a Poor Law authority disregarded a particular exemption, there was no authority to enforce them to carry it out. There were large public assistance committees which ignored the law. The Secretary of State for Scotland ultimately persuaded them to carry it out, but meantime for months and for years poor persons did not receive payments that they were entitled to. It may well be that the number of authorities that do not carry out the law may be small, but poor persons should not be penalised. What powers has the Minister to see that no poor person loses? By the time he takes action months may have elapsed. Why should a poor person who has proved his case to the satisfaction of the Minister be punished for weeks or months by not receiving sums to which he has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is entitled?
I trust that the Minister will accept the Amendment and will bring the law into conformity with that of Scotland. A great deal of the force of the change in the law will be lost if Poor Law authorities can decline to pay. By the time the Minister has acted, the man's need may have gone, because he may have resumed work, but he has been penalised whereas, if the public assistance committee had carried out the law, he would have got the benefit of the exemption. The Amendment has the added force that it would secure uniformity. It gives no public assistance committee a privilege over another whereas, as the Bill stands, a committee which has no regard for the law, instead of being penalised, is subsidised by being able to save the money that it should have paid out.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. PALING: I think it would be very much better if compulsion were put upon people who tried to evade the law. No such powers are given under the Bill. The Minister says that if an appeal were given in this case it would only be an appeal to him upon a small section. That may be so, but this is a rather a new thing and a particular thing, and we are justified in asking that there should be an appeal in these circumstances. There is a vast difference in treatment as between various authorities up and down the country. We think there ought to be no difference between any authorities as regards these payments, but we are afraid there will be, and, if there is, is it asking too much that those who are suffering should have a right of appeal to the Minister to have given them what is laid down in the law? I do not think that we are asking for anything that is extraordinary, and I hope that, in view of what has been said, he will see his way to alter his opinion and give us that for which we ask.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: There is a difference in administration in this matter. Take two similar cases in respect of Health Insurance. In the case of a man, wife and four children, the rate is 35s. Here is a case in which the husband is in receipt of Health Insurance and receives 15s. We know of cases in this respect where the authorities have not
given the £2 2s. 6d., as they ought to have done since they are giving 35s. where there is no sickness. We know of cases where instead of giving £2 2s. 6d. they have given 37s. 6d. What can such persons do to secure the benefit of the Act? I agree with the Minister that every individual case could come up on appeal, but is it not possible to have some safeguard so that a man can secure the full benefit of the Act? There may be next door neighbours. One of them may be sick and the other may not be sick. They come under the provisions of the law, and, surely, an Amendment that asks that something should be done to secure the full value of the law is not asking too much. If the wording be wrong, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest some other method of getting the full benefit of the law?

11.36 a.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I was surprised to hear the Minister this morning refuse the request of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) which is contained in the Amendment. I can well remember that the Minister of Health, when he thought that a few of us in South Yorkshire were paying too much, was not very long in coming after us. He surcharged your humble servant and others £284. We made an appeal, and the amount was ultimately reduced to £2 10s. If the Minister of Health can investigate the case of public assistance committees whom he thinks are paying too much, I want to know why he cannot investigate cases where we feel that they are not paying sufficient and are not carrying out, the law. The hon. Member for Ince, (Mr. G. Macdonald) bas stated several cases, and I could state cases galore, where Health Insurance has not been taken into account. They have refused to take it into account.
You may have two committees in different parts of the country where the one committee looks at a case and wants to know whether there is destitution before they take into consideration the 7s. 6d, and the 5s. and the other committee, before they start to consider a case, take off the first 7s. 6d. and the first 5s. There you have two different examples entirely, and, when the Minister said this morning that he could not take this matter into account, I was a little astounded. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean)
has distinctly read out the Act which came into operation not 100 years ago, but only 10 weeks ago. Surely it is fresh in the memory of the Minister of Health, and yet he states that as far as England is concerned it cannot have the same benefit as Scotland. That is a ridiculous situation into which to put people who apply for public assistance, and I hope that when he replies he will at least concede the request contained in the Amendment.

11.40 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: First of all, let me clear up a misconception contained in the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). Under this Bill, the people of England will have precisely the same benefits as the people of Scotland. The purpose of the Bill is that all that is secured in the Scottish Bill shall be secured to the people of England. I think that hon. Members who have spoken have been mistaken in supposing that the Bill will not secure to the persons it is intended to benefit the full enjoyment of the benefit the Bill intends to secure. The picture of local authorities, who, in widespread manner, generally disregard the terms of the law, or the picture of public assistance committees, who, in an equally widespread manner, administer the law without care and with a wide degree of variation, is a completely mistaken picture. That was the picture which hon. Members produced. But it is not so.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) what provision there is for securing that the spirit of the law shall be enforced, and with reasonable uniformity in its enforcement? My first answer is that the law is not disregarded by public authorities. The second answer is this: The manner in which the observance of their functions in a reasonable manner by the public assistance committees is secured in the manner in which it should be secured according to our ideas of public assistance administration. It is secured by the general powers of supervision of the Ministry of Health, in the most practical of all manners, through the general inspectors, who are officers well-known to hon. Members opposite for the work they do in close relation with the public
assistance committees, and by the admirable spirit with which they do their work with great efficiency. It is by continuous consultation and the advice of the general inspectors that the objects which hon. Members have in mind will be secured. The hon. Member for Hemsworth is completely mistaken if he thinks that there is even a tendency to exercise that general supervision and that power of advice, counsel and guidance in only one direction. It is not so. The supervision of the Ministry of Health is exercised in order to secure the law being observed, and when the law lays down the provision, as it does in this Bill, the supervision of the Ministry of Health will be exercised in order to secure that it is applied in favour of applicants just as much as it is in any other case.
I will turn to other arguments addressed by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in the first place. Let me put it as strongly against myself as I can. He said "You profess that this law is one to assimilate the law of Scotland and England, and here is a particular way in which it is not assimilated." That is based again, I think, upon a very deep misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill. I can well understand why the Amendment to which he referred was accepted in the Committee upstairs. It was in order that the practice under Scottish public assistance law should be made the same in England in this matter as it is in other matters. In Scotland there are, and were prior to the Scottish Act, certain rights of appeal against the refusal of relief, against an order for indoor relief, and against inadequate relief.
That right of appeal is familiar to Scotland, but I need not remind the hon. Member, with his deep knowledge of Scottish culture, that, in regard to the public assistance law and many other laws, the history and the conditions of Scottish law Are completely different from ours as regards procedure. It has a different foundation in civil law from the common law of England. It has different historical associations and there are widely different conditions, economic And cultural. We should be following the wrong course if we thought that as regards procedure we needed in all cases to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland. That brings me to a
point of difference in regard to which there is misunderstanding by hon. Members opposite of the purpose of the Bill. This is a Bill to secure the same benefits to the people in England as are secured to the people in Scotland. That is what is expressed in the heading of the Bill:
to secure uniformity throughout Great Britain in the provisions relating to the disregarding of sick pay, etc.
It is to secure similarity of benefits but not similarity of procedure. If we were to make the suggested alteration it would be so foreign to our practice of the law in England, that even though we might try to assimilate English procedure to Scottish procedure in that respect, there would dill remain 101 very much wider differences. This Bill is not designed for that purpose, and indeed it should not be so designed because our system suits our conditions and no doubt the Scottish system as regards procedure suits the Scottish conditions. It is for that reason that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, and I cannot promise any reasoned consideration which will alter that view of the case. The object of the Bill is to secure equal benefits for the people of this country with those in Scotland, but under our existing procedure.

11.48 a.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is very disappointing. He has not met the case that has been put. He is trying to have it both ways. On the Second Reading of the Bill I was reproved and told that this was not a Bill for bringing in things like workmen's compensation, but merely to bring English and Scottish law into line. When we seek to-day to do that, the right hon. Gentleman tries to dodge out of it in a way that does not meet our case at all. When the Scottish Bill was before the Standing Committee there were members of the Committee who felt there ought to be safeguards provided for people who were in future to enjoy these additions to their benefit, or, rather, to be excused from having their benefits reduced. Some of my hon. Friends felt that it would be right to insert a safeguard to make sure that these people did get what they were entitled to under the law of the land. I know quite well
that the whole structure of Scottish law is different from our English poor law.
This is not a small point but a point of substance. On this Bill which is intended to bring the provisions of the English law into line with the Scottish law, we are entitled to ask for the same kind of safeguards as have been given to Scotland. When the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill came to this House and was given a Third Reading, it did not confer some particular benefit on the Scottish people because it was felt that Scotland was out in the cold. If the Bill had been an English Bill, the same point would have been raised in the Committee that was raised by my hon. Friends and if it had been accepted, as the principle was accepted in the Scotish Bill, we should have felt that it ought to be accepted for Scotland also. Therefore, our case to-day is that as the principle was accepted by Parliament just before the holidays as regards Scotland, it should be applied to England. That seems to be perfectly reasonable. It is not that we mistrust the whole structure of local Government in this country, but we know of cases where the local authorities did not carry out the law when the question of sick pay had to be considered.
With the new added advantages not merely sick pay but maternity benefit and so on, we are not asking much when we say that when the right hon. Gentleman's vigilant inspectors do not happen to be about and mistakes are made, and people are defrauded of what is due to them, that they should have some kind of appeal. It does not help the right hon. Gentleman for him to say that we do not like appeals in this country. Under the Unemployment Act which was passed by this Government recently, provision was made for the first time for an appeal to the Minister. Why should not there be an appeal in this case. It would not be difficult. It would only be a question of subtraction and addition. The point would be whether the 7s. 6d. had been allowed for or not. If the Minister said that it had not been allowed for and he certified to that effect, it would have to be paid. That is a proper safeguard against abuse, perhaps in thousands of cases. A safeguard which has been accepted for Scotland ought to be accepted for England.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is designed to give the same benefits to England as to Scotland. Without entering into our difference of opinion, I would say that that is precisely the point on which we differ. If the inspector finds that a man has not got the allowance, he is paid back in Scotland the sum to which he is entitled, but in England under the Bill if the inspector finds that a man ought to have been paid this sum but has not been paid it, he will not be paid the back money. In Scotland it was illegal for the Poor Law authorities to pay poor law back money, but we have altered that. Where it is found that a. man should have been paid and has not he is now paid it in Scotland, but it will not be the same in England. Take the case of two ex-service men. In Scotland if, through a mistake, the man has not been paid, he will be paid back the sum to which he is entitled, but in England he would not be paid. We say, that the same benefit ought to be paid in England as in Scotland.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: We were able to quote numerous cases in Scotland where payment had been withheld and that was why we were able to get the provision put in for Scotland. Suppose one of the right hon. Gentlemen inspectors finds that in a case of sick benefit an applicant for public assistance has not had the first 7s. 6d. taken into consideration and that the authorities have actually reduced his amount of public assistance by 7s. 6d., having looked upon it as income going into the house. Assuming that the total amount that the man would have received per week had there been no health benefit going in was and he was only paid £1 12s. 6d. The 7s. 6d. going in for sick benefit is treated as income and they disallow a portion of the public assistance which he would otherwise have received. Let us assume that that case goes on for four weeks before the inspector comes upon the scene. That means that the individual loses 30s. to which he would have been entitled. According to the Bill that we are now discussing such a man in England will not receive any of that back money, but his 7s. 6d. will be added when the inspector has shown the Public Assistance Committee that they have not
been carrying out the law. It will only be paid the first week after the investigation makes it clear that the 30s. has not been paid but the 30s. will not be recoverable by him. A Scottish applicant in a similiar case, a man who has not received the allowance in respect of sick benefit by an evasion of the law, unconscious perhaps, can apply to the Department of Health for Scotland, who can give an order to the public assistance committee of the particular locality to pay the 30s. arrears for the four weeks to the man.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no need for the Amendment as there are sufficient safeguards so far as the English case is concerned. Where are these safeguards? Can the Minister assure the Committee that in a case where this 7s. 6d. has not been taken into account by the public assistance committee, or the £1 in the case of a man with a pension, that when such evasion is found out and his inspector instructs the public assistance committee that they have not been carrying out the law, the individual will receive the amount which has not been paid to him? Is there a safeguard in the Bill to meet that case? If there is perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us. This is a matter which does not affect parties but it does affect every hon. Member in the House. If it is found out that in Scotland we had given an applicant the right to receive this amount which he ought to receive and that the Department of Health can instruct the public assistance committee to pay him the money, then I am confident that if English Members of Parliament do not accede to this provision and give the same protection to the English applicant they will receive representations from their constituents insisting that the same benefits shall be given in England as we have succeeded in obtaining in Scotland. If there is not the same protection for the English applicant I am sure that in the succeeding week the Ministry of Health will be submerged by letters from applicants asking that their case shall be gone into.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. PALING: I listened with some interest to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. We put down certain Amendments to the Bill which have been ruled out on the ground that they do not conform to the general principle of the
Bill, which is designed to secure uniformity in the law as between England and Scotland. But the Amendment which we are now discussing, and which we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept, is designed to secure uniformity of benefit as between England and Scotland. We are asking that the same rights shall be given to English workmen to secure their full benefits as are given to Scottish workmen. When we point out that there is this right in Scotland and put forward the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman says that while the Bill may be designed to get uniformity of benefit it is not designed to get uniformity of procedure. Why not? Is there any reason why there should not be uniformity of procedure? The right hon. Gentleman gave no reason. He said that the atmosphere in Sotland is different, the Poor Law system in Scotland is different, that there is a difference in national characteristics. I do not know whether this is the case or not, but I am sure that there is a similarity between people in England and Scotland in that they are equally anxious to secure as much of these benefits as they can. It may be that if a Scottish applicant is refused these benefits he will kick and make himself generally unpleasant, whereas in England he might say nothing about it.
I say that there is no difference between the two in this respect. If they have this right in Scotland there is no reason why we should not have it in England. It is said that good arguments were adduced for this proposal in the Scottish Grand Committee. Are we not entitled to expect that the same good arguments will have some influence on the right hon. Gentleman in the case of England? He has not made out any case for opposing the Amendment. If Scotland has a right to this extra safeguard then I can see no reason why the same right should not be given in the case of England.

12.3 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not propose to enter into a discussion in regard to the Scottish case. They are starting a revolution in Poor Law administration which has been going on since the war, and in facing these new conditions the Scottish Standing Committee and this House have laid down new principles. That would not have been done had there not been good evidence that it was necessary. I
cannot see why the Minister says that there is no need for this change in England and Wales. I have had as much experience in administering the Poor Law as anyone, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if between now and the Bill going to the House of Lords he will make inquiries of the London auditor, who surcharged myself and others because we did take into account health insurance. I appeared before him on at least three occasions, and on each occasion he said "if you continue to take this into account you will lay yourself open to a very heavy surcharge." As the Audit Act had been passed we had not the courage to face the results of such a surcharge. It would have been a considerable sum of money.
It had been a general principle with us not to take into account health insurance up to 7s. 6d. a week. The auditor disputed our right to do that. I appeared before him with a colleague and put the case again and again, but on each occasion he stuck to the opinion that we had no right to do what we were doing. I want the Minister of Health to keep in mind the fact that what we were doing was under an Act of Parliament which says that in assessing the destitution of a person the 7s. 6d. must not be taken into account. Between now and Monday I want the right hon. Gentleman to look into the case against the London County Council that was taken to the courts a month or two ago. That Council from the moment it became a Public Assistance Committee, has excluded the 7s. 6d. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it has been a very widespread and deliberate practice.
There are two points I want the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into. One is the action of the auditor who engaged in very vehement arguments with me on the subject because I claimed that the law should be carried out for the poor as well as for anyone else, and because I claimed that he had no right to impose on us the responsibility either of submitting to a big surcharge and then going to the court for relief, which we were not sure of getting, or of submitting to his ruling, which in my judgment was absolutely illegal. I think I put some questions to the then Minister of Health on the subject, and I believe that the statement was then made that the auditor was not the Minister's
officer but was independent and so on. Surely poor persons should have a right of appeal to the right hon. Gentleman.
The other point is the action of the Public Assistance Committee of the London County Council, which was dealt with in the courts recently. I will abide by the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, as to whether that case does not dissipate his argument that this practice is widespread. In any case I cannot accept the argument that what is good for Scotland cannot be good for England because our conditions are different. My Scottish friends very often want Home Rule for Scotland. I think they do very well by being with us. They

12.19 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to add:
"() Sections forty-nine and fifty of the Poor Law Act, 1930 (which makes provision as to relief on loan) are hereby repealed."
This Amendment reaches back, to some extent, to the same argument to which

get excellent differential treatment. The 7s. 6d. and the other sums are a very big consideration. Parliament, not a Socialist Parliament but a House of Commons ruled by Liberals and Tories, has given the poor the right to claim that when they are getting 7s. 6d. sick pay that shall not be taken into account in assessing their destitution. In a very large number of cases that law has been put on one side by local authorities and by the auditors, and that is a much more serious consideration.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 72.

Division No. 392.]
AYES.
[12.12 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Parkinson, John Allen


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Rea, Walter Russell


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Thorne, William James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Buchanan, George
Grundy. Thomas W.
White, Henry Graham


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dagger, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Debbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edwards, Charles
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves




NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Denville, Alfred
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(PortsM'th,C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Granville, Edgar
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Templeton, William P.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Burnett, John George
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
MacAndrew, Lieut-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Carver, Major William H.
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Womersley, Sir Walter


Cooke, Douglas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Crossley, A. C.
Munro, Patrick



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Blindell.

we have just listened, only that I think the Minister, from a debating point of view, is on slightly weaker ground. Here again we are trying to make the law of England the same as the law of Scotland. When the Scottish Standing Committee discussed the point, those of us who thought that the relief on loan should be
abolished, put down an Amendment with that object. The Scottish Standing Committee, having given the matter very careful consideration, debating it for two days, decided that relief on loan ought to be abolished for Scotland. The Minister sought to get away from it by speaking about appeals to the Minister and that sort of thing. There is here no question about appeals to the Minister or the Department. It is a simple Amendment for the abolition of relief on loan. I am not going over the arguments for that abolition, but will content myself with the Minister's own statement on the Second Reading of this Bill, namely, that it is to bring the law of England into conformity with the law of Scotland, and that the benefits are to apply equally to the one country as to the other. If this benefit be needed for Scotland, then the same benefit ought to apply to England. I admit that, possibly, in some respects there are differences between Scottish Poor Law and English Poor Law in their origins, but in certain matters there is no difference. I agree with the hon. Member who said there is no difference in poverty. There is, however, a little difference in outlook. In any case, I want to plead for the abolition of relief on loan as a, system which belongs to the Dark Ages.
Now that we are bringing into effect the new Unemployment Act, relief on loan ought to be abolished throughout the country. As I said, I am not going to argue the proposition, but am simply going to state the facts. When the Unemployment Insurance Bill went through the House, the great argument for the transitional benefit was, roughly speaking, that unemployment benefit, when a person had received his standard benefit, became a national form of Poor Law, and ought to be subject to some similar form of test. If a person has qualified to receive national Poor Law benefit and is not subject to be paid on loan, why should another person, not because he is any worse but because of force of circumstances, be subject to having his relief on loan? Under the new Unemployment Insurance Act it is estimated that 95 per cent. of the able-bodied poor become chargeable to the Government. That figure may be right or wrong, but I take it as being correct.
Who are the five per cent.? Roughly speaking, they belong to three categories
—the small business man, who cannot qualify, the hawker class and the people who have been abroad. Why should the small shopkeeper, who cannot qualify but must come on able-bodied poor relief, be subject to his relief being granted on loan, whereas the other person, who can join the national scheme, is not subject to the same condition? Suppose a man has gone to the colonies in a spirit of adventure and as a result has got outside the Act. Is it fair that he should be penalised? Supposing a person who has received relief afterwards secures work of some kind or another, why should he have this burden placed upon him? I want to say that in Scotland we have never worked this system to the same degree as it has been worked in England, but we have worked it to some extent, and I have seen it operate. I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite who takes such an interest in the British Legion is no longer in his place. I have known cases in Scotland where we have succeeded in getting for a man a sum of money with which to start a business. He started the business, but has relief had previously been granted to him on loan, all the time that the poor fellow was struggling to earn a living from his business he had that loan like a dead weight upon him.
I suggest that a man who has been on Poor Law relief is in much the same relationship to the State as the member of a family who has received a loan from the family. If you lend one of your own family a sum of money and he then does well, is not that fact in itself your repayment 7 If a poor devil who has got a loan from the State afterwards raises himself above the necessity for Poor Law relief, is not that the State's repayment? What happens under the present system of relief on loan is that he will not take steps to raise himself above the need for relief because he knows that this debt is a first charge against him. He has no incentive to raise himself above the need for relief. This debt crushes him down. I do not know conditions among the miners as well as the members for mining constituencies but I have been in conversation with miners on this subject and there is a difference between the treatment of the miners in Scotland and the treatment of the miners in England in this respect. In 1926 the miners had relief paid to them. It was
given on loan and the loan is still, in some cases I understand in England, outstanding. I may be wrong, but I understand that to be the position. In Scotland that relief was cancelled. That a miner to-day, in 1934,, with his awful work and his low wages should still be bearing that load of debt is, I submit, a penalty on decency. The more decent and kindly the man himself is the more he feels it. A large proportion of our population hate to be in debt.
I trust therefore that the Committee will say with me that it is time to bring the law in England up to the same humane standard as that which has been applied in Scotland. I ask them to say that in future relief given to persons because they are destitute is not to hang like a dead weight around the necks of those persons for years and years. If a man has committed a crime, when he has served his sentence we have always taken the view that that should end the matter, and that there could be no further proceedings against him. Is not the punishment of having to go on Poor Law relief enough for a man without heaping further punishment upon him in the shape of a load of debt. I ask hon. Members to treat this matter in a spirit of decency. Indeed I would say to those who have been brought up in a public-school atmosphere and an atmosphere of culture to treat it in a spirit of sportsmanship and to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the wording of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper which refers to "the Poor Law Act, 1932"—

The CHAIRMAN: That matter has been mentioned and has been put right already. It should be "the Poor Law Act, 1930."

Mr. BUCHANAN: That was my mistake, and I admitted it. The hon. Member need not rub it in.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I desire to support the Amendment which asks that the law of England and the law of Scotland shall be brought into line on this matter. The mover has mentioned the case of the miners and I wish to go a little into that
question. In the street in which I live there are miners to-day who got relief on loan in 1926 and are still paying it back. Some of them still owe as much as £10 or £15 and are repaying it at the rate of 1s. for each week in which they work three days or more. If they do not work three clays a week, but only 21 days or 21 days, they do not pay that week's instalment. There are some men in the South Yorkshire coal-field who are only receiving is. 6d. per day, and if they have three days' work in the week that represents 22s. 6d. less stoppages, and the stoppages are often about a half-a-crown. Out of what is left the miner has to pay 1s. towards repayment of the 1926 lock-out relief on loan. That was not a strike as far as the miner was concerned but a lock-out.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) tells us that the miners in Scotland got this relief, but that the loan was cancelled, and when they got back to work they had not this debt hanging over them. But our men in South Yorkshire still have that debt hanging over them and some of them have almost had the souls crushed 'out of them by it. There are young men who were attempting to get their heads up and to raise their wives and families, but to-day, on account of this debt, they arc depressed and despondent. They will want to know the reason why they should be treated differently from the miners in Scotland. We in the West Riding some 18 months ago tried to have this loan forgiven and wiped out, but we were told by the inspectors and auditors that it could not be done. To-day the miners of South Yorkshire are paying back to the West Riding County Council a sum of £30,000 a year in shillings. I hope therefore that the Committee will agree with us in this Amendment.
There is another point. There were 160,000 men injured in the mining industry last year, and these men who are working three days a week get an average compensation of about 22s. 6d. per week. They have no savings, and they are living from hand to mouth. When they meet with an accident they have nothing whatever, but have to apply at once to the Poor Law, and if they have any relief granted to them, it is on loan. When they get their compensation in two or three weeks' time, the amount of loan
that they have received is deducted from their compensation before they get it. Take the case of a man who has two days' work a week. It is not a question of whether there is destitution; the Poor Law people say, "You have been working two days at 7s. 6d. a day, which is 15s., less stoppages, and we cannot grant you anything"; and if they do grant anything, it is granted on loan. If that man the following week has no wages at the office, that loan is stopped off, not in the mining office, but at the employment exchange, and when he comes for his employment exchange four days' benefit, if he has a wife and two children, he will get less than a sovereign. Instead of drawing his unemployment benefit that he should have drawn a few weeks before, e draws it less the loan which may have been granted to him. That is not the case in Scotland, and I ask that at least we shall have the same treatment as Scotland has had.
Here are two cases that have come under my personal observation. In the little township in which I live, in Royston, a miner came to me and said, "I have two days to come this week, and my wife is expecting in the course of a few weeks, but she is not getting sufficient food to eat." I said, "Get a doctor's rote." He got it, and it stated that this Mrs. So-and-so required extra nourishment of milk and eggs. The man, a respectable citizen, presented this note to the relieving officer who said, "I cannot give you anything, because you are working." This man had worked 35 shifts in 18 weeks, and—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think this has anything to do with relief on loan.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I wanted to point cut that he wanted this relief, not on loan, but that they would only grant it to him on loan. The point is that on the medical officer's certificate he could only get it on loan, and he did not receive the benefits that the doctor prescribed. I could cite other cases, and I hope the Committee this time, instead of turning down the Amendment, will at least see that we in England and Wales shall have equal to what Scotland has, not relief on loan, hut, if relief is required, that the man or woman shall have it without having a debt hung round his or her neck.

12.40 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of bringing the law of England into conformity with that of Scotland. It is another case where the Scottish Standing Committee and the Scottish Members have stolen a march upon the English Members almost unawares. This relic of medieval practice in our Poor Law ought really to be got rid of, and here is an opportunity which presents itself to the Minister when he is seeking to bring the law and the administration in this country into conformity with what it is North of the Tweed. If it is right there, it is right here. I have come across the most dreadful cases of the way in which this Act is being administered, cases of people who have been out of work for weeks or months, who have got rid of anything on which they could realise anything in their homes, who are indebted to their friends, who have parted with their goods and chattels, and then, one bright day, they get a job and begin to have a little hope, but suddenly they are confronted with a demand for repayment.
In some parts of Wiltshire at the present time there are such cases, and whenever they get a job and have a few shillings to spare wherewith to get their children the clothes they could not buy before, and perhaps get some of their goods and chattels back into their homes, they are confronted with a demand from the public assistance committee, on the instructions of the auditor, for repayment. We have got away from that medieval barbarism, through the enterprise of our friends in Scotland, North of the Tweed, and here is an opportunity of bringing the same humanity into our Poor Law in England and Wales. We are entitled to it as much as they are in Scotland, and as this golden opportunity has presented itself, I hope the Minister will seize it.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: This Bill and this Amendment are an illustration of the great amount of confusion into which our services have fallen in this country. They are symptoms of the disorderly way—I do not use the word with any offensive meaning—in which these services have found their way on to the Statute Book. The whole field of social services is littered with proposals which
have reached the Statute Book in response to some sudden economic emergency or social need, and I welcome this Bill for what it does, as indeed I would welcome any other Bill for the purpose of removing any inequalities in the law and practice of the Poor Law, or to eliminate any inequality or unfairness of treatment between any other classes of persons whose needs were the same, but who came into some other administrative class for some technical reason.
This Amendment discloses one of those extraordinary states of confusion which will arise, it is feared, in the very near future. My hon. Friend below me referred to what would happen when the Unemployment Assistance Board began to operate, and it is true that there will be a position which will bring into the field of legislation all sorts of anomalies. What is to happen when a man who has hitherto been under the Poor Law is suddenly, because he happens to have got into work, brought under the Unemployment Assistance Board? I do not know, but I think the Committee is entitled to have information on this subject, because it is very germane to the Amendment. Will an individual who, having been fortunate enough to get a little work and leave the Poor Law, comes under the Unemployment Assistance Board, take with him the liability to repay the loan, or will it become the liability of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Will the Board, in carrying out their duty of relieving a man's necessities, have to take into account the debt he has contracted to the Poor Law authorities which hangs over his head? I hope the Minister will see his way in this Bill or in some other Measure to remove this possibility of uncertainty and anomaly. I would ask him if he could give his mind—because this is a matter of the most profound importance—to the setting up of sonic body much wider than a departmental body—

The CHAIRMAN: That question hardly arises on this Amendment.

Mr. WHITE: I agree. I rose to draw attention to the necessity of either the proposal which is embodied in the Amendment or some similar proposal if we are not to reach a state of great confusion in the administration of these services.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I think I am correct in saying that this system is continued because of a judgment some years ago in favour of the Ministry of Health which implied that an able-bodied man was obliged to maintain his family although the labour market might be closed against him. This Statute has been made to apply on account of an anachronism of that kind. I cannot see how the Minister can legitimately allow this provision to continue in England and Wales when it does not obtain in Scotland. One can appreciate the argument that it would act as a detriment against trade disputes, such as strikes in particular, or lock-outs. As it does not apply in Scotland, however, that argument cannot be applied to England and Wales. In Glamorgan we have on a number of occasions tried to remove this load from the shoulders of those who are, generally speaking, destitute people, but we have been unable to do so. At one time we endeavoured to estimate the amount that had to be spent in collecting this money, and we discovered that the amount spent in paying officials to call at houses to collect in some weeks 3d. and in other weeks 1s. was so excessive that it was hardly worth their while, and certainly not worth the while of the authority to engage collectors to get very small amounts of money. It led to a number of administrative difficulties.
The Minister really ought to welcome this Amendment in order to put England and Wales in the same position as Scotland. Apart from that, this system ought not to be justified at all. The people to whom it applies are seldom above the destitution line and never above the poverty line. The reports presented to us this week with regard to the distressed areas show that there are 40,000 persons in South Wales who are really redundant and cannot be absorbed. The repeal of this provision would certainly partially relieve both Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. It would relieve the destitute people in South Wales and in other distressed areas outside Scotland. By accepting the Amendment the Minister will do something to amplify the recommendations for relief which is contained in the reports on the distressed areas.

12.50. p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) gave good reasons to show that as this system was not in operation in Scotland it ought not to be continued in this country. It is not often that a Scotsman gives anything without getting good value for what he gives. Scotland has experienced this system and are getting good value for their money, and surely we ought to follow their experience and adopt the same method. I would remind the Minister that in introducing this Measure he said he wanted to march side by side with Scotland, and that that was why he brought it forward. There is a grand opportunity to put this country on the same footing as Scotland and so enable the two countries to march side by side. There is a stronger reason than that. Two of my colleagues mentioned miners' stoppages. I remember several of them, and I recall vividly how in one locality the men marched to the Poor Law-offices in order to try and get relief. Thousands of them got it on loan and to the present time much of that money remains to be paid back. The men cannot pay it back and probably it will become a bad debt, for it costs almost as much to collect it as the amount that they collect. The book-keeping and the collecting will about balance when all the money has come in.
In my experience very few people go to the Poor Law unless out of sheer necessity. No one likes to go there at all. I should like to see the whole system of relief put on a similar footing. Boards of guardians in one part of the country are more lenient than those in another, or, if I may put it in the reverse way, some are more harsh than others. Some may grant relief on loan and others may grant it without any conditions. It all depends on the complexion of the board of guardians. As we have had experience of this system in Scotland, why should riot England be put on the same footing so that everybody will be treated alike '? I hope that if the Minister does not see his way to accept the Amendment some regard will be paid to our appeal. From time to time small Bills are introduced which raise large questions and they have to be put on one side on the plea that they cannot be dealt with in those small Measures. I hope that the Minister will riot shelve this question on that plea. I
welcome what is in the Bill, but I am sorry that it does not go further, and I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision.

12.54 p.m.

The. PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): On this Amendment, which was introduced in a closely reasoned speech by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), we have had some interesting speeches challenging the whole principles of the Poor Law in this country. I note that the hon. Member corrected a mistake on the Order Paper with regard to the year 1932. When I first read it, I thought he was trying to pretend that the National Government perpetuated this relief on loan, and then I realised that he always says what he thinks and is never backward in coming forward even in criticising his friends. It must be remembered that the whole principle of relief on loan was approved, endorsed and continued in the Act of 1930, passed by a Government of which the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) was such a distinguished member.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: That is a consolidating Act.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The principle of relief on loan became an issue at a recent by-election. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government which gave endorsement to that principle was not sufficiently brought out there. I did my best to bring it not, but apparently the electors did not appreciate the point. In the issue raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals there are two points—the point of principle, and the point of administration. On the point of principle, which has been accepted for at least a century, surely it is right that a man who borrows money should give an undertaking that he will try to repay it. That principle was introduced into the Poor Law not only in the interests of the administration but in the interests of the recipients themselves. Indeed, in many parts of the country men who claim relief prefer to receive it as a loan, because it preserves their independence. I cannot speak for Scotland, but as far as England is concerned it is not only a question of good administration by local
authorities but applicants for relief themselves accept the principle that if their circumstances recover and they can afford to repay in whole or part they will do so. I say that principle is right, and in practice it has been shown that very few harsh cases arise. We are the most sensitive barometer of all the Government Departments. If anything goes wrong the Minister or myself knows about it almost as soon as it has happened, and I have never heard of a case of harsh administration in this respect. No member of this House has ever brought me a single case since I have been at the Ministry. I say that this system is working fairly, and that it is generally efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals talked about shops, and it is quite true that the shopkeeper would come into that 5 per cent. who had passed from the Unemployment Assistance Board and come under public assistance. If a shopkeeper gets relief on loan and subsequently manages to make a good profit out of his business. makes, say, £500 a year, surely it would he wrong that 116 should not recognise his past liability. Members have spoken as though local authorities in all cases claim repayment of relief. That is not so. The local authority has the discretion to decide whether to claim the whole or part of the loan and in every case the circumstances of the individual are taken into account.

Dr. ADDISON: Is it not the fact that the local authorities have acted not on their own initiative but on the instructions of auditors and have sent out claims indiscriminately to all persons to whom relief has been granted?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, not to my knowledge because the Labour Government's Act of 1930 gave a local authority discretion as to the exercise of this power to claim repayment of relief on loan. It is no use my right hon. Friend trying to get away from that.

Dr. ADDISON: Not at all, I do not dispute the fact a bit, but it is a bad law and it wants altering. The hon. Gentleman says the Government want to assimilate the law of England to the law of Scotland. Here is a chance of doing so. We should make up for the errors of the past.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Now we are on the next point, which was fully argued by my right hon. Friend. In this Bill, which is limited to assimilating the law of England to that of Scotland as regards four objects, we are not trying to amend the whole law and practice of the Poor Law. The hon. Member for Birkenhead' (Mr. G. White) spoke about confusion and anomalies. I cannot pretend to know Scottish law, but in so far as I do know anything about it I claim that on the whole the principle and practice of poor law administration in England is not behind that of Scotland. We have long accepted the principle of relief for able-bodied men, and Scotland did not get it till 1921. Relief on loan was in operation in Scotland from 1927 until 1934. In Scotland relief is a right, and though in this country it is not a right we get the same effect by saying that it shall be the duty of a local authority to relieve. As to the right of appeal given to the Scottish applicant we get it in a different way, that is by the general supervisory power of the Minister to see that in cases of complaint these matters are attended to. But why should there be confusion because, for hundreds of years, the difference between the Scottish law and the English law has been a marked difference? On the whole I am not sure that it has not been to the advantage of us English. All we claim is that we should have home rule for England in this well-established principle. Anyhow, this is not a Bill on which we are going to upset and change the law, but to assimilate it to that of Scotland.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has again refused an Amendment which we thought would improve the Bill. I am glad that he did not repeat the arguments of the Minister as to why England should be treated differently from Scotland. The Minister told us that Scottish tradition, mentality and characteristic are such that we could not expect to apply to England what Scotland has in all cases. I do not think that is the reason.

Sir H. YOUNG: Does the hon. Member question that proposition which he has just stated?

Mr. MACDONALD: With a name such as I have I could not. I suggest that the reason for the difference is that
Scottish Members in Standing Committee were more powerful in argument and more persuasive, or that the Scottish Minister was more easily persuaded than the Minister of Health for England. I cannot understand how any person can justify the poor in Scotland never being relieved on loan and the poor in England running the chance of relief on loan. If instead of comparing Scotland and England we take the case of Lancashire and Yorkshire the position will be much more clearly seen. Could we suggest that miners in Yorkshire should have relief, but not on loan, but that the miners in Lancashire should have relief on loan? The House would never agree to such a thing. If this is applied to the miners in Scotland, why not to the miners in Durham and Northumberland? I cannot understand how the Minister can resist the appeal to give the same treatment to miners in Northumberland as is already given to the miners in Scotland.
We have seen relief on loan in operation and that is why we want to see the system ended. We would like relief to be determined entirely according to the position of the applicant at the time he makes his application, no regard being paid to future possibilities. We think the attitude of the Minister is entirely wrong on that point. I know cases in which men who ought to have had relief did not get it, because they had previously had relief on loan, and they did not want those loans hanging over their lives for a number of years. I can understand the Conservative Government reserving their right in these cases, so that in a trade dispute public assistance will not enable the workers to hang on sufficiently long to win. Relief on loan will act as a deterrent in those cases. During the stoppage of 1926 relief was given on loan upon the instructions of the Minister of Health. I was chairman of a board of guardians at that time, and we decided not to give relief on loan, but we were soon told that we had to alter that decision. We then told recipients that if they could pay back at any time they should do so.
There has been a change since then. The committee now say, not that the money should not be paid back until recipients reach a position of comparative wealth, but "You shall pay back regardless of consequences to your family." In Wigan, scores of people have been
appointed collectors, and people are told that they must pay their loans back at a certain ratio and by a certain date, and they are being pestered. The collector is paid on commission, with the result that he wants to increase his income week by week, and if he finds that people are missing a week he brings pressure to bear. I have had to deal with a number of cases in which people have been treated unfairly in regard to their relief on loan. I have never heard a person say "I do not want relief in the ordinary sense, but, the public assistance committee will grant me a loan;" they go to the committee because they are destitute. We say that they should have relief without regard to future possibilities. The Bill is intended to bring our law into conformity with the practice in Scotland, and, if relief without loan be right in Scotland, it cannot be right to omit it from England. It is not fair that because there is a barrier between people they should have different treatment.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: This Bill applies to the shopkeeper as it does to other classes. Why should a little shopkeeper struggling in a miserable side street be penalised? After the Welsh disaster the pit shut down, and that means distress not only for the miner but for the poor shopkeeper. His shop also shuts down, and he goes on poor relief. The miner goes on what the Tories call national poor relief, but the shopkeeper is not treated in that way. It is suggested that he might later earn £500 a year; but so might the miner, although he seldom does in practice. What applies in one case should apply in the other. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) has earned a reputation in this House, and I gladly acknowledge his capacity. In the Committee proceedings upstairs he said this:
There is a good deal with which I disagree in the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but one point which he made should be emphasised; that is, the extreme undesirability of putting a millstone round the neck of a young man starting in life.
The hon. Member declared that the young man who had relief on loan was starting in life with a handicap. The second thing he said was:
The decent man who feels he owes something to the local authority is handicapped in his mind, whereas the other
fellow who is a careless sort of man, does not mind a bit. It puts a handicap on the decent man who is trying to do his best, and it does not count in the case of a man who is out to get whatever he can."—[Official Report, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 8th May, 1934; col. 51.]
I hate penalties put on decency, and I hope the hon. Members of the Opposition will divide with me on this Amendment.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that this principle has never been challenged, but at least one board of guardians challenged it. Years ago the Merthyr Tydvil Board challenged it.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My point was that no one challenged it in the House in 1930 when the Bill was going through.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a Consolidation Bill, an Amendment to challenge this principle would have been out of Order.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We had a Bill of 400 Clauses last year, and endless Amendments and new Clauses were moved.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought the Minister was suggesting that it had not been challenged outside. I am unable to speak as to the proceedings on the Bill of 1930, as I was not then here, but I feel sure that, if the Minister took a census of the views held by local authorities and public assistance committees, they would not support the Ministry in this—certainly not in the distressed areas. I think that on this matter we ought to have the views of Members representing distressed areas. From time to time they have made many applications to the Minister for relief, and on this matter I am certain that Members representing the distressed areas would agree with me when I say that the local authorities in those areas would be at one in trying to remove this millstone, not only from their own necks, but from the necks of the poor people, who are just on the verge of destitution at all times. In the constituency of one of my colleagues, namely Methyr Tydvil, the rates are 27s. 6d. in the pound. There are scores of people there who have this enormous burden to face, and yet collectors are knocking at their doors and taking from them the few extra coppers
that they get during the three or four days that they may be working at the colliery—

Mr. BUCHANAN: And the Poor Law authority does not want it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Poor Law authority does not want it. The same thing applies throughout the whole of Glamorgan. Nearly 40 per cent. of the people there are totally unemployed, and most of them are faced with a debt of this kind. This is one of the most irritating pieces of administration that can be conceived, and yet it is to be continued. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister in regard to it. It is no use saying that this has been the pracitice for 100 years. In the old days an individual could be treated as an individual, and it was possible to infer that he was responsible for his lot, but in these days masses of people are affected by some unforeseen incident. In law it would be called an act of God; here it is called depression, or something of that kind. Masses of people are struck at once, and 50 per cent, or more of them may be affected to the extent of being rendered destitute; but, because they are able-bodied persons, they are not entitled to relief. Although the market is closed against them, and they cannot sell their labour, they cannot obtain relief except on loan, because it is the English law that they are responsible to their dependants, although they cannot sell their labour in the market. In these days, when masses of people are affected in that way, the position is very different from what it was in the old days, when the individual may have been responsible for the plight of his family. There is no justification for the continuance of this as I think, very serious anomaly. That is putting entirely on one side the fact that it does not obtain in Scotland. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the position. I would ask him if he is prepared to inquire into the cost of collection, and relate it to the amount actually collected. If he will do that, he will find that it really is not a paying proposition, apart from the other factors.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 87.

Division No. 393.]
AYES.
[1.21 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Thorne, William James


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Janner, Barnett
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianeily)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
Lanshury, Rt. Hon. George



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Allen, Col. Sandeman (Birkenhead)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fox, Sir Gifford
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bellile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Ramsbotham, Herwaid


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffleld, B'tside)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Blindell, James
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Bouiton, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Storey, Samuel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Browne, Captain A. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Tate, Mavis Constance


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Burnett, John George
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Llewellin, Major John J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cooke, Douglas
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Crooke, J. Smedley
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Denville, Alfred
Morgan, Robert H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Dickie, John P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Morrison, William Shepherd



Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Munro, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Citation, repeal, extent and commencement), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

1.26 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I do not think it requires any words from me to commend the Third Reading. The House is in possession of the various interesting matters which have arisen for discussion in Committee, and I think there is really no difference of opinion as to the desirability of passing the Bill as a whole. As the House is aware, the general effect of the Bill is to place an obligation upon public assistance authorities to disregard. the first five shillings of trade union sick pay on the same footing as friendly
societies' sick pay, because. there is no difference in substance between the two, to impose a similar obligation in respect of maternity benefit, and to disregard the first pound of a disability pension. As to the desirability of these measures the House is in full agreement, and I trust, that we shall now be able to secure the Bill.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Two sentences only will be adequate to explain the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself in this matter. We are extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were unable to meet us on the Amendments that we moved in Committee, but we have considered the Bill as a whole, and we feel that we should not be justified in opposing the Third Reading.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not be
justified in voting, against the Bill. I regret that it does not assimilate the law of England and Scotland in respect of the matters that we have discussed and one or two others as well, but it makes some improvement in the lives and conditions of the poorest section of the community and anything that does that is to that extent welcome. The bringing of trade unions into the same condition as friendly societies was absolutely necessary. I wish to thank the Opposition for putting their whips on. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is an even more faithful attender at the House than I am, is unwell and is unable to be here.

1.29 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I should like to associate myself with what previous speaker's have said. We, too, in view of the fact that an improvement is being introduced by the Bill, have no desire to divide on the Third Reading. We also are rather sorry that suggestions that were put forward in Committee were not accepted. We hope that on a future occasion the Minister will take the opportunity of introducing further Measures to bring those suggestions into practical effect, particularly the suggestions in regard to workmen's compensation payments not being taken into consideration in the way they are at present, and, if the Minister finds it possible to do something in that regard, he will have taken a step in the right direction.

1.30 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I should like to express the great appreciation that many of us feel as regards the exemption of maternity benefit. I hope this is only the beginning of considerable measures to be taken to improve maternity conditions. They are very much wanted. This is a small step, and there is a great deal that one could say on the subject, but it is a step in the right direction, and I hope it is the forerunner of further measures next Session in regard to health and maternity benefits.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[CAPTAIN BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Approval of Agreement for cession of the Dindings) and 2 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCREDULE.—Agreement made between His Excellency Andrew Caldecott, Esquire, C.M.G., C.B.E., Officer Administering the Government of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, on behalf of His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Highness the Sultan of Perak.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

1.32 p.m.

Captain FULLER: I should like to ask whether the term "Dindings" in fact covers all the territories conceded to the Sultan of Perak under the two Agreements of 1826 and 1874, where the territories concerned are put down in a more complete fashion. The 1826 Agreement refers to the
Pulo Dinding on the Island of Pangkor together with all and every one of the islands which belonged until this period to the Kings of Perak.
I wish to ask whether the term "Dindings," as it appears in every paragraph of the Schedule, includes all those territories. The island of Pangkor is between the Pulo Dinding and the mainland. It is a definite geographical entity, and it may well be that it does not include that. The intention, I am sure, is that it should.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the word "Dindings" is used in the plural. I can give him a complete assurance that it includes both the island and the mainland territories.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.

The following Notices of Motion stood upon the Order paper:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 27) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-third day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 29) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1934, dated the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order, 1934, dated the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 33) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.—[Dr. Burgin.]

1.35 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): Before I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to move the first of the Additional Import Duties Orders, I would point out that it has been the general practice of the House to have a discussion upon all the proposed Orders on the Motion for the first one, and if that course be agreeable to hon. Members, I suggest that it should be followed on this occasion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we shall be quite happy to fall in with that arrangement.

1.36 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
The arrangement which you have suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and which has been accepted by the Opposition, has in practice been found to be convenient. I would, therefore, suggest that, with the permission of the House, I should make a short introductory statement with regard to the eight Orders taken together and then give a little more detail about those Orders, which, through the usual channels, I have learnt are likely to be of more interest to the Opposition than others. There are eight Orders which the House is asked to approve—Nos. 26 to 33 —and the House may like to be reminded that Order No. 25 was approved on the 24th July last, so that this is a definite continuation of the series. Of these eight Orders, five were made in August, one in September and two in October. The Orders cover a great mass of detail which has been investigated by the Import Duties Advisory Committee and upon which reports have been made, and upon those reports, after consideration, Orders have been made, and it is the affirmative Resolutions approving those Orders which are now asked from the House.
They cover a wide variety of products, two classes of agricultural products,
fruit and vegetables, and various industrial products, chiefly strawboard, medical and surgical instruments, various bolts, nuts and nails, semi-manufactured forms of certain metals, and various products of iron and steel wire. I think it is the experience of almost everyone of us that after any piece of machinery has been run for a certain time adjustments are made, and bolts are tightened up, and that is the experience with these Import Duties Orders. A number of them are mere modifications or improvement of earlier Orders. I will deal with them quite sketchily in the first instance, passing on to give a little more detail about surgical instruments which has been asked for by the Opposition, and a little more detail about the agricultural products and the nonferrous metals which has been asked for by hon. Members below the Gangway.
I will give the house an indication of the way in which the Import Duties Advisory Committee have proceeded with regard to these Orders generally. Take the first Order No. 26. This imposes specific duties instead of an ad valorem duty on certain kinds of preserved fruits. The new duties are very little higher than the old duty—the old duty was 25 per cent. ad valorem—but they are more effective because they should assist home growers by excluding or making dearer the foreign article at certain times of the year. Such is the growth of experience in the canning industry that it is necessary to extend the definition of the method of preserving jam. Fruit preserving was hitherto done by chemicals and by artificial heat. Precisely the same results can now be obtained by artificial cold and consequently there is need for a definition. That is rather symptomatic of this class of Order which I am now moving. There are slight changes for the better to carry out more effectively the decisions to which Parliament is committed of allowing the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make recommendations, and on those recommendations to make Orders. I have the details of the countries from which the imports come, of the areas in which the British trade is carried on, and of the relative extent of imports in each case should they be requested. Passing from Order No. 26
dealing with fruit, I come to strawboards which is to have a duty of 15 per cent. when unlined and 20 per cent. when lined. A very important industry in board made from waste paper has grown up in this country, and it is desired, without any injury whatever to the using industries, to give protection to the home makers. Again I have similar details.
That brings me to Order No. 28, a short Order dealing with medical and surgical instruments, and at the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite I will deal a little more fully with that particular Order. Surgical instruments come under the category of cutlery and tools although the words seem perhaps. a little inapplicable. Cutlery and tools are subject to a 10 per cent. additional duty. When the Orders were made, the duty on surgical instruments was left at 10 per cent. Order No. 28 puts the 10 per cent. up to 20 per cent. and places these particular tools and this particular type of cutlery in the same family as those other instruments. There is a very large industry in the United Kingdom, the factories are fully equipped with the most modern plant, and the public bodies and voluntary hospitals use almost entirely British instruments, and there is also a very considerable export trade in British-made instruments. There are imports of standard instruments sold at very low prices. The British preference is not to have a surgical instrument standardised and made by mass production at a low price, but to have, as far as possible, a hand-forged instrument provided here. The Committee, therefore, recommend that there should be a 20 per cent. duty upon these surgical instruments. Unless and until I am asked questions about this, I think that that is as far as I need take that particular Order for the moment.
I now come to Order No. 29, articles made from various metals. That is an immense family. The details run into very large proportions, because they deal with all kinds of bolts, nuts, screws, staples, tacks and things of that sort. I do not think it is necessary to go into them in detail, but I would point out that bolts, nuts and screws can be made in this country to the full extent of the whole of our requirements. It is
anomalous, when we have coal and a flourishing iron and steel industry, that we should have any gap in our regulation of imports which permits large quantities of black iron and of steel, bolts, nuts and screws to come here in competition with our own workmen. There are a certain number of small screws of a precision type which we import regularly from other countries. Nothing in this Order will affect the importation of those precision screws because they will continue to be charged ad valorem whereas the duty that has been put on in this Order is a duty per weight, and touches the cheaper varieties, the more ordinary type of screw and bolt. I would emphasise the fact that this is an adjusting regulation to permit the precision screw to come in but is intended to keep out the cheap ordinary screw which we can manufacture perfectly well in this country. I have the details of the importation, the types and the areas where these things are made and the numbers of people employed, but unless and until I am pressed on any specific matter relating to this somewhat multitudinous schedule of metal articles, I do not think that I reed detain the House longer on the order. I now come to Orders Nos. 30 and 33. Order No. 30 relates to certain horticultural and agricultural products. Both Orders deal with trees. Order No. 33 is merely necessary because of a slip of definition in Order No. 30. It deals with the question whether or not there is to be a duty on the earth surrounding the roots of trees.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Duty on the earth?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, you may do a good deal of damage if you separate the earth from the tree. There has been a general review of horticultural products since the Order was first brought in in 1932 and progress has been made under the protection of the previous duties. There is an adjustment of a number of duties to increase the protection for the home growers at certain periods of the year. Again, unless hon. Members desire to cross-examine me on points of detail I do not think I need say anything further. That leaves me with only two other Orders, Nos. 31 and 32, which deal with zinc and rivets. Order No. 31 puts a
duty on zinc sheets and strips corresponding to the duty which is put on by Order No. 29 on aluminium, copper and copper alloys when in sheet and strip. What the Committee recommend as an alternative to an ad valorem duty, a special duty of so much a pound, the greater of the two duties to apply. Orders Nos. 29 and 31 are complementary. Order No. 32 deals with manufactures of iron and steel wire. It imposes a duty of 33 1/3 per cent. on various articles manufactured of iron and steel wire. In the case of bifurcated or split rivets, there is also a specific duty of 3d. per 1,000. There is a tremendous range of wire products not covered by any additional duty and foreign competition has been greatly increasing. I have the statistics of employment and the details of British manufacture. No using industry is affected but the producing industry is considerably helped by this Order. Those are the criteria which this House has hitherto required to be satisfied upon before giving its assent to these Orders. That is all that it is necessary to say at this stage. There is a vast amount of detail, and while not promising to give an answer off the reel to any specific question, I think that I shall be able to cover any normal inquiry.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are obliged to the hon. Member for having given us his explanatory statement relating to the whole of the eight Orders. I do not propose to invite the House to listen to me in an examination in minute detail of each one of the Orders. I shall make reference to one of them only, namely, Order No. 28, not because I think that the trade concerned therein is of greater importance than the other trades concerned in the other Orders—those engaged in those trades no doubt consider that they are of exceptional importance both to the employers and the employed—but because Order No. 28 is one which I can conveniently discuss and on which I can raise the general principle which ought to be raised. We on this side of the House have repeatedly expressed our views concerning the policy which underlies these various Orders. The Minister has spoken of the Orders as the continuation of a series. They certainly are the continuation of a series.
The Orders have become almost as plentiful as leaves in Vallambrosa, and like
the quality of mercy
which
droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath,
they have come upon this House in showers.
Whether the policy underlying these Orders has been adequately discussed or not, I should like to say, and I do not wish to raise a general controversy, that I agree with those who allege that the Government have through the medium of the Orders been implementing what is well known to have been the Tory policy for the last 30 years. They have been doing that under the mantle of the National Government. They have implemented the old Tory policy of Protection and the mandate which they allege they received at the last election. In so far as our party is concerned I entirely deny that there was any such mandate. That is all that I propose to say on that somewhat controversial issue. I am prepared to concede that from time to time Governments may be obliged to have regard to the excessive importation of, shall we say, sweated goods. I take that as an illustration.
I can conceive that any Government, whatever its political complexion, may be compelled to have regard to the vast inflow of sweated goods from other countries which create economic difficulties inside the borders of our own country. If I am prepared to concede that proposition, and it is a limited proposition that I am conceding, I am prepared to concede that there must be some sort of regulation embarked upon. Once we concede the proposition that there may be from time to time necessity for some sort of regulation, clearly, we ought to know what the specific case may be for applying the regulation to any particular import at any given time. This brings me to the remarks I desire to make on these Orders. I complain, as we have complained frequently, that oft-times we are invited to approve an Order without very adequate reasons why we should approve being advanced. The case is stated before a triumvirate. These three people, excellent gentlemen no doubt in their respective capacities, very capable men, are called upon to determine
whether a given commodity shall or shall not be the subject of an Import Duty.
The hon. Member will, of course, say quite rightly that in the ultimate resort there is an appeal to this House, and that this House is free to do as it likes. That is true, but when the House is called upon to exercise its final authority in the matter it has not at its disposal that close and meticulous statement of the case which was available to the Commissioners when they examined it. Take the Order with which I am concerned as an illustration. We have a brief summary of the case in page 2 of the Order, but nobody can argue, by any stretch of imagination, that it is an adequate statement of the case for applying this Duty. It is a very summarised account. I say that in order to emphasise this point, that we have entered upon a policy whereby three people, not answerable to this House by their presence here and not subject to cross-examination, discuss a problem like this in absentia without our knowing the case that is put before them and call upon us to implement their suggestions. What do they say in regard to Import Duty Order No. 28. In the first place, they say that there is a falling off in demand, and they give the reason, that it is due to trade depression. What does that mean? They say:
The surgical instrument industry has suffered severely from the falling off of demand during the period of trade depression.

Dr. BURGIN: "During the period of trade depression."

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member perhaps objects to my saying that the falling off is due to trade depression. Perhaps I was a little wrong in my interpretation of the phrase, but it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to relate the falling off in demand to trade depression. They have some relation to each other. Trade depression clearly has something to do with the fall in demand, because the financial resources of those who are ordinarily customers of these instruments have been depleted on account of the trade depression, and they are not able to keep up their demand for surgical and other instruments. The second case they make is that the fall in demand has been accentuated by foreign competition. In his statement the hon. Member said that
a large proportion of these instruments used by hospitals and institutions are made in Great Britain and that we have in fact a fairly substantial export trade in some of these instruments. There is, however, an import trade. Obviously, it is a limited market abroad. The only people likely to ask for these instruments are those engaged in hospitals and dental institutions, and I submit that when you tend to exclude instruments of this sort you really are doing something which perhaps is more far reaching in its effect than when you exclude foreign trees and shrubs.
Science, and especially the science of medicine, is an international activity and interest. If hospitals find, as they clearly must otherwise they would not buy these foreign instruments, that a German instrument is more adaptable for their purpose than an English instrument is there not something rather more in it, something more valuable to the nation, than the mere passing advantage of pounds, shillings and pence to British traders? There is the inestimable advantage of placing at the disposal of our hospitals and such like institutions an opportunity for making use of the very latest which science has devised, here or abroad, and, therefore, I take objection to Order No. 28 on that account. Hospitals ought to be able to have access to the very latest instruments whatever they may be, and wherever they may be devised. We are told in the Memorandum of the Committee that new and important designs are continually being introduced. That applies here as it does abroad; and abroad as it does here, and, therefore, they should be at the disposal and available to the people of this country. Having regard to the proposition I have laid down I am astonished to read:
We are satisfied that the existence of a healthy industry in this country is most desirable in the interests of progress in surgery.
From one point of view that is quite right and we should all agree that it is desirable, but I question whether we are going to facilitate progress in surgery by excluding, or seeking to exclude, foreign instruments which may be of inestimable value in the work. Last night we had a most interesting interchange of views between the Lord President of the Council and one or two of my hon.
Friends in relation to the effect of the creation of a monopoly in the matter of armaments and the political reactions in those areas where such a monopoly exists. That is one of the troubles I find in relation to all these Import Duties: it is the creation of vested interests here, there and everywhere. If the Parliamentary Secretary would only read the passage that the Lord President of the Council applied in another connection last night, relating it to the granting of protective duties up and down the land, and ask precisely the same question as his right hon. Friend asked—what would be the chances of success or failure of a candidate at a by-election when the question of the retention or removal of these duties was in dispute I—the answer would be precisely the same as that what the Lord President indicated last night in relation to armaments.
The Government have created all over the country vested interests in relation to which the employers are very keenly alive, and the workpeople are becoming keenly alive also. Yes, but mark the point. It may quite well be the case that a Government, looking at this problem from a national point of view, will come to the conclusion that it is proper in the national interest that the duty upon a certain article be removed, that national policy is hampered by the vested interests which have been created. This matter of import duties has been urged ad nauseam for years, and we can only repeat arguments that have been used time and time again. I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that to this method of regulation our objection remains unchanged. We may admit that some form of regulation is inevitable under certain conditions, but that does not commit us to this form of regulation; and on the general ground that I have indicated quite inadequately, as on the grounds advanced on many occasions before, I express our objection to these Orders en masse.

2.8 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We are considering a regular hotch-potch of duties, on nails, surgical instruments, trees and plants, and vegetables. I am sometimes amazed. I will not say at the width of knowledge but at the large capacity of the three gentlemen who urge the need for these various duties on a comprehensive number of articles. I do not pretend to have
that technical knowledge either in myself or available in advance. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said, the House having accepted this policy it is impossible for the private Member to turn the limelight on every particular article. Most of these recommendations reached Members only a few days ago, and it has been impossible to collect statistics and information that would enable one to reach a judgment as to the advisability of the duties or as to their size. I have one criticism to offer, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to convey it to the appropriate people. It is rather lamentable that no serious attempt is now being made by the Commissioners to give us detailed statistics. In the earlier days the recommendations were accompanied by ample information and statistics so that we could judge of their merit. We do not hear the evidence given to the Commissioners, for it is taken in private. We do not know why or how they have arrived at their decision. It is in the interests of the public, and particularly of the House of Commons, which has the responsibility, that fuller information should be made available.
I am interested in that very healthy article of diet which I am glad to see is becoming more popular—vegetables. I am going to make a bold statement, though I am not prepared to substantiate it with figures. In the towns and cities, and in London particularly, vegetables are too expensive. They are difficult to obtain and insufficient in variety, and I should have thought that in the interests of the national diet the freer our ports, and the larger the area of supply, the better it would be for the well-being of the nation. We have had some of these duties in force for two years. I have here Order No. 5, dated 1932, which came into operation two years ago. It was then suggested that there was much prospect of improved marketing, and the Commissioners argued as to the necessity for the duty. There is this remarkable statement on page 3 of the latest Order:
In respect of cauliflowers and broccoli, as substantial progress in production is being made there appears to be good reason for an increase.
That is an increase of the original duty. I could understand that statement being used as an argument for reducing the
duty, that because an industry was prosperous and able to stand on its own feet the duty should be reduced. The Commissioners have it both ways. In the time of Henry VII if you were poor you were taxed heavily because you were not spending, and if you spent you were taxed heavily because you could afford to spend and were apparently rich. The argument of the Commissioners is that if an industry is doing badly the duty should be increased, and if the industry is doing well that is an equal reason for raising the duty. In other words, if an industry is prosperous it is a case for further protection. and if it is languishing or poor it is equally a ease for protection.
Vegetables, which include lettuce, are very variable in price. Much depends on the weather, a dry summer or a wet summer, and the condition of the market varies from time to time. I have taken the trouble to get some of the market reports, but it is difficult to state what is the normal price for cauliflowers, broccoli, carrots and turnips. In the greengrocers' shops in the East End of London, the price, especially for such things as lettuce, is usually prohibitive to the ordinary working-class homes. Nothing is more unfortunate among the poorer sections of the community than the comparatively small use of vegetables as a food product. My own view is that the Committee was right when it put the blame—or hinted at it—not so much on foreign competition as on unsatisfactory marketing, and, on the one hand, the poor price paid to the grower, and, on the other hand, the high price paid by the consumer.
I was in the country last Monday night when I ought to have been in the House of Commons, but I was called away on an important duty to address a meeting, and I happened to be staying with a very large and successful farmer. I was talking to him about the importance of his giving more time and devoting more land to the growing of vegetables, especially winter vegetables such as winter spinach, and the answer I got—I think it is a good one—was that the real trouble was that in the marketing of small parcels of vegetables sent to London the system of marketing was so unsatisfactory, and the cost of transport to the centre was so great, that it certainly did not pay to handle on any considerable scale the production of vegetable products. It is not
merely in the great cities, but the local marketing facilities are bad. The intelligent foreigner visiting this country is struck by the absence of local markets. In the home counties—Surrey, Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk—counties at a distance of between 60 and 70 miles from London, there is no proper local wholesale market for the handling of vegetables. A great part of these vegetables go to Covent Garden, through all the expensive handling due to railway freights to London and carriage to the railway station, and has to go all the way back to Ipswich, Maidstone or other of the local markets.
Of course, that is not a matter within the cognisance of the three counties. The real responsibility is that of the Minister of Agriculture. One of the things I do not like about this particular procedure is that the whipping-boy of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary, who has to deal with nails, screws, cauliflowers and tomatoes and all the rotten eggs of the Government, cannot be an authority on the home markets of the country. It ought to have been the obligation of the Minister of Agriculture to make himself conversant with the problem, and satisfy himself that this is a good recommendation, and that here lies the real remedy. Unfortunately, it is Friday afternoon, and most Members have gone away to their constituencies by early train. It is impossible for me to divide the House in these circumstances, but I do protest, first, against the procedure, and secondly, that there is no adequate evidence for the duties on many of these articles. There is a serious discontent among the working people about the high prices of many of these articles. It may be that the farmer cannot produce these articles at any lower price, but whether because of bad marketing or high cost of production, or whether these duties are too high—and that is undoubtedly a contributory fact—I think that the Government are tackling the problem on the wrong lines. I think the suggestion in these Reports as to improved marketing is the right method, and I am not satisfied that a case has been made out in the Report for these recommendations. I can only protest, and I exercise that right in the form of speech.

2.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I approach the subject from an entirely different
standpoint from that of the hon. Member, having come from a district the produce of which would lie rotting on the ground under a, system of unrestricted foreign imports. I believe that that danger has been obviated. I cannot understand the last speaker still advocating an out-of-date procedure by which foreign importation should allow our own produce to rot on the ground, and our own people to be out of work. If I might use his own term, and turn the floodlight of public opinion on these Reports, I would read these words which appear on page 3:
There is a general consensus of evidence as to the large increase in home production "—
Thanks to Import Duties,
and as to the advance made in market-methods
Again, thanks to Import Duties
and from no quarter has it been suggested that prices generally have been affected to the detriment of the consumers.
That is a matter which the Conservative party have always said would happen, namely, that prices would not be adversely affected if the system of Import Duties was introduced. We have excellent reasons why they should be continued. For the first time, there has been an increase of men employed in agricultural pursuits. Sometimes it is said that the Board of Trade are not sufficiently go ahead, but, at any rate, they have a start, and I, for one, shall be very glad to support them.

2.23 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: It is only, of course, with the consent of the House that I can speak again on the same matter, but the House probably desires that I should answer the question put to me. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), in dealing with medical and surgical instruments, I think, misapprehended what I have said. He must not relate the large consumption of instruments by hospitals with the importations from abroad. The two sentences were entirely separate. I was not saying anything to convey the impression that any part of the foreign instruments went normally into consumption in the British hospitals. Where foreign inventions or discoveries are made, the only effect of this Order will be to increase the duty from 10 to 2) per cent.
A large part of the hon. Member's speech sounded as if there were to be a prohibition. Nobody will really believe that an addition of 2s. in the £ on the duty is going to have any such effect. Really, as in so many of these matters, we have to balance the question of price to the consumer with the question of attractiveness to the producer. We have to do all we can to encourage employment in this country, and therefore fairly to balance the interests of the producer and the consumer—not to overdo it, of course, but to see that that side is considered. The hon. Member referred to the speech by the Lord President of the Council last night, and he asked what would the candidate in a by-election say when he was asked was he in favour of this duty. Why has the House of Commons in its wisdom under the Import Duties Act placed the whole of this matter under independent control? Why is it that the Members of the Import Duties Advisory Committee are not in this House and are not directly and personally responsible here? It is in order to make them independent and to reduce the possibility of those very considerations which the hon. Member has raised.
With regard to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Sir. P. Harris), I am sure that anything which he can do to persuade the working people to consume more vegetables will be greatly welcomed. It is not because of the price in the greengrocers shops that more vegetables are not consumed. Thers is a reluctance to consume them and a lack of familiarity among the public with the quality of the vegetables and the advantage of vegetables as a diet, which we want to dispel. I was surprised at what he said regarding price because no complaint has reached us at all on the part of the consumer of the price of foodstuffs being too high. It is quite a wrong impression for the hon. Baronet to have or to attempt to give the House that there are complaints about the price of foodstuffs. Such is not the fact. The index of food prices has not caused any complaint. And the hon. Baronet deludes himself if he thinks that is the case.

Sir P. HARRIS: It is among the poor.

Dr. BURGIN: I do not accept that statement. It is quite contrary to the information that we have. The hon. Baronet also says that it would be better to have all our ports open and to let in as much of these vegetables as possible wherever they come from. Does it not strike the House that it would be rather strange, with all the land which is available in this country, that we should import enormous quantities of vegetables from France and the Netherlands and Belgium. Is it not a tremendous tribute to the business acumen of those cowl-tries that, in spite of the Channel being between us, they can send their vegetables here and find a market for them while we leave our fields partially unfilled and do not get our goods to market? Should not we encourage by every means in our power the movement for a vast increase in the production of good quality vegetables which is going on now?
I have here detailed particulars as to where these different classes of vegetables come from, their prices and the extent to which we in this country grow similar articles, and the increase of acreage under cultivation, the increase of output, the increase of production in this country in regard to all these different classes of vegetables is striking. When we are considering land settlement problems, and smallholdings problems, with the desire to put as many more men as we can on the land, we must interest ourselves to see that there is a market for home-grown vegetables and that it is not altogether taken away by large-scale shipments from countries across the sea. There is every desire to popularise the consumption of vegetables and to see that the consumer gets a good quality of vegetables, but surely it is an anomaly that we should import so much that we could grow ourselves. It would be very much better indeed if we made our own marketing arrangements better and induced our own people to consume in greater quantities something which we really can grow and grow well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 27) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1931, dated the twenty-third day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 29) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1934, dated the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth clay oil October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order, 1934, dated the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 33) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1933.

2.30 p.m.

The SECRETARY OF STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move:
That the Sheriffdom of Perth and Angus Order, 1934, dated the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.
As vacancies occur in the office of sheriff in Scotland it is now the statutory duty of the Secretary of State to consider whether the formation of new sheriffdoms is desirable. I may state for the information of my English confreres in the House that the sheriff in Scotland is normally a practising advocate not resident in his sheriffdom, and the greater part of his duties is discharged by resident sheriffs substitute. The Royal Commission on the Court of Session and the Office of Sheriff Principal, presided over by Lord Clyde, which reported in 1927, laid down three principles to be observed in considering the re-arrangement of sheriffdoms. The first was that there should be no loss of efficiency or inconvenience to the public. The second was that there should be no such enlargement of districts as might make it difficult to obtain the appointment of counsel of the highest standing at the Bar and the third was that due regard should be had to geographical situation and the desirability of equalising the work of the new sheriffdoms as far as possible.
These three principles were taken into account before this Order was tabled and these three guiding principles have been before us in reviewing the three cases of vacancies which have occurred since the passing of the 1933 Act. Two of these vacancies have been filled in the ordinary way but applying those principles to the problem, I decided, after careful consideration, that it would be proper to effect the small economy of some £650 a year to he obtained by the amalgamation of Perth and Angus. The objections to this amalgamation have been carefully considered but I am satisfied that economy is here consistent with efficiency 'and public convenience. I
know that some of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak on the subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is naturally more conversant with the subject than I am and I am sure that he will deal fully with any questions that are put here.

2.34 p.m.

Captain SHAW: I rise to oppose the Motion or rather to enter a protest against it. I think it particularly inopportune that it should have been taken on a Friday afternoon when so many Scottish Members find it impossible to be here owing to engagements in Scotland. I know, for instance, that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr) would have been here to join with me in my protest against this Motion had it not been necessary for him to attend elsewhere. The Secretary of State has referred to the economy which is to be effected by this amalgamation. We heard a great deal about economy two or three years ago but I think this is the first occasion for some time on which we have heard it mentioned from the Front Bench. The total amount involved, £650 a year, is not worth considering and, as regards efficiency, I do not think that this amalgamation will add to the efficiency or expedite the discharge of business in these two counties. I think the very opposite is likely to be the effect, and it is extraordinary that we should be cutting down the sheriffs in Scotland at this time.
I think the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate must admit that, should we have civil disturbances, it would be a very great advantage to have two sheriffs, one in each county. I know the people in these counties are among the most reasonable, levelheaded, and law-abiding people in the country, but the right hon. Gentlemen must know that at the present time in the counties of Perth and Forfar there is a formidable amount of unrest and anxiety owing to the working of the milk marketing scheme. Hundreds of summonses have been issued, and many people who are being asked to pay their dues actually cannot pay, and you can see that if these farmers and smallholders are sold up in order to meet this levy, you will have in all probability a
situation not dissimilar to the tithe war which we have had in other parts of the country. This is a very serious outlook, and I do not know that the Government realise the enormous amount of feeling that there is in the two counties on this matter. It is conceivable that we may have a great deal of trouble there, and in these circumstances I think the present is a most inopportune moment to amalgamate these sheriffdoms. If, on the other hand, they could give an assurance that they will meet this trouble, which is growing and coming to a head, it would to a certain extent remove my objections, but at present I wish to record my protest against the proposal.

2.37 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I regard this Order with the gravest misgiving. As regards any possible advantage resulting from it, the only one that can be suggested is a saving of a sum which at present will amount to £650 and which might get smaller. All that can be said in regard to the performance of the work is that it is hoped that no loss of efficiency will result. That can only be a hope, and there is no suggestion that there can be any increased efficiency. I do not propose to add anything on the local circumstances to what has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw). I should like for a moment to dwell on rather wider considerations. There has been recently, not only in Scotland but in England, a most deplorable tendency towards overloading part-time officers. There has been another tendency, which it would not be relevant to consider, of turning part-time officers into whole-time officers, which I also deplore, and I am glad to see that the Scottish Office have adopted the recommendation of the Commission presided over by the Lord President that there should be no drastic reduction in the number of sheriffs. Therefore the Scottish Office do avoid that criticism, but they do not avoid the second criticism, and not only in the case of paid officers, but in the case of those who do public work voluntarily, there has been a most deplorable tendency to overload them.
I regard that tendency as being very largely responsible for the somewhat unsatisfactory working of our local government machinery in many areas. You overload the office of town or county councillor by putting on the shoulders of
the holders of those offices duties which they did not previously perform, and then you are surprised that things do not work quite as well as they did before. You are surprised that first-rate men are rather unwilling to give their services in those connections, and you have things happening which had much better not happen. Fortunately, that deterioration has not gone far, in most areas at least, but I must say that I think the time has come to put a stop to the amalgamation of part-time offices, and I trust that this will be the very last occasion on which any such amalgamation is put forward by this or any other Government.
The essence of a sheriffdom is that you shall get a first-class man who does this as a purely part-time job, and the history of the sheriffdom of Perth shows how successfully that principle has operated in the past. I am told that of the 17 occupants of that sheriffdom during the last century, no fewer than 14 have reached the Bench and two have become Lords of Appeal in another place, and I very gravely doubt, once you increase the duties of the sheriff principal, although you may also slightly increase the salary, to the extent to which this Order seeks to do, whether in the next century you will have such a distinguished succession of holders of that office. It must be remembered that it is essential that a sheriff shall be able to fix diets for some considerable time in the day, and it is a very grave interference with the practice of a busy man if he has to fix a large number of such diets. It is not the actual volume of work that matters. No doubt, in the present depressed conditions of litigation, as of other walks of life, the volume of work in these two sheriffdoms is small. We do not know that it will continue to be small, but that is by no means the whole of the sheriff's duties. Indeed, from some points of view, it is not the most important side of his duties.
My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the duties of the sheriffs in case of civil disturbance, but there are many other much more peaceful duties, unpaid duties, which the sheriffs have been used to perform. Sheriffs are very frequently called upon to identify themselves with the liability, as trustees, of various bodies, and they have to do that if they are to carry out satisfactorily their duties of advising the Scottish Office on many points that come up. Can it be supposed that in
two such large, important, and in many ways diverse counties as Angus and Perth you will get the same identification of the sheriff with his sheriffdom as you got in the past? I gravely doubt it. If you double a man's work and give him a very small increase in salary, there is not the same likelihood that he will do a great deal of outside unpaid work over and above what he has to do. Not only that, but sheriffs take a leading part on boards such as the Northern Lights Board, and they sit on other boards, such as the Board of Control—all that work over awl above what appears to the public eye. I think the result of this Order, certainly the result if this principle is pressed in future, will be disastrous to the present system in Scotland. I was glad to see that when the Lord Advocate was giving evidence in another place he said:
It appears to be extremely difficult to find any other two sheriffdoms in which this Section of the Act of 1933 can be more easily and more efficiently applied than the sheriffdoms of Perth and Angus.
I trust that he will see fit to find in future that it is impossible, because I do not know of any other two sheriffdoms which could be amalgamated without even graver effects than those which I fear may happen in the present instance, and I hope we shall get an assurance from the Government that they will not lightly pursue this policy any further. I gravely fear that we may live to regret what I can only call this cheeseparing interference with a system which has stood the test of time and the test of repeated inquiries.

2.45 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): It is to be remembered that this Order is tabled in pursuance of the Secretary of State's duty under a recent Act of Parliament, namely, the Administration of Justice Act of last year. I wish to point out as clearly as I can that my right hon. Friend has not applied the Section which permits amalgamation without discrimination. Two vacancies occurred before the vacancy in the sheriffdom of Perth. There were vacancies in the sheriffdoms of Inverness and Dumbartonshire. Both of these were filled without any amalgamation. Then occurred the vacancy which we are considering to-day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) pointed out, I said in evidence
which I gave in another place, that I could not find in Scotland any two sheriffdoms where the principle of amalgamation might be more readily applied than those of Perth and Angus.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) was concerned about the preservation of law and order. It is one of the duties of the sheriffs in Scotland to render assistance in the preservation of law and order. They read the Riot Act if necessary, and call out forces in order to suppress serious trouble, but the kind of occasion upon which the sheriff has to act has little relation to the kind of discontent which is said to be manifesting itself in these two counties because of the Milk Marketing Board. Where the sheriff has really to act is in the case of something in the nature of a public riot, and I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend does not anticipate in the near future anything of that kind in any part of his constituency or the neighbouring county of Perth. Nor do I apprehend that there is the least probability of any such disorder in that part of Scotland as would require the presence of two sheriffs and could not adequately be dealt with by one sheriff. One hopes that there will be no disorder for any sheriff to deal with in those two counties at all.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk was concerned that there should not be placed on the sheriff or any part-time officer duties which would be inconsistent with getting the highest type of man to fill the office. With that observation, I entirely agree. How does it apply to the present amalgamation? When this amalgamation has taken place, the combined sheriffdom will still be less as regards population and practically the same as regards judicial and other business as the combined sheriffdom of Aberdeen, Kincardine and Banff. Nevertheless, I do bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. The sheriffdoms of Aberdeen and of Perth and Angus will be the two largest part-time sheriffdoms in Scotland. For my part, I should not like any attempt to be made.to recast the sheriffdoms in Scotland so that all of them were equal in size and importance to the existing sheriffdom of Aberdeen or that of Perth and Angus.
It is very necessary to bear in mind the circumstances in each particular case
which arises. There are many areas in Scotland where the difficulties of preservation of law and order in times of stress will be greater than in such sheriffdoms as Aberdeen or Perth and Angus, although the area is smaller. There are many sheriffdoms where the total amount of judicial business may be considerably less than that which we anticipate will take place in these combined sheriffdoms or the judicial business which, over an average of years, takes place in the sheriffdom of Aberdeen. Nevertheless, it may not be desirable or proper to amalgamate sheriffdoms merely because, when amalgamation takes place, the sum of prospective appeals will not be greater than the sum of prospective appeals in Aberdeen or in Perth and Angus. Every case must be considered on its merits.
One must bear in mind that the sheriff principals in Scotland are part-time officers, but it is of great national importance that these offices should be acceptable by members of the highest standing at the Bar and of the highest legal learning; it is also of great importance that they should remain, as they have in the past, the stepping stones to a place on the Bench of the Court of Session. If these three principles are borne in mind, I have little fear that the powers and duties conferred upon. the Secretary of State by the Administration of Justice Act will lead to any adverse results in future.
I think I may say with confidence that every possible aspect of the present proposal has been most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and his advisers, and the Government put it forward to the House of Commons with the full assurance that there will be no loss of efficiency, no inconvenience to the public, and on danger either to public order or to the due administration of justice in the sheriffdom. Nor do we think that there is any doubt that we shall be able to procure for this sheriffdom in future, as we have secured for the two sheriffdoms of Perth and Angus in the past, men of the very highest standing at the Bar, who will be capable of discharging the duties of sheriff principal to the complete satisfaction of the inhabitants of the sheriffdom and of the people of Scotland as a whole. I therefore think that while much that has been said contains proper
points for consideration in these matters, yet none of the criticisms touch the present proposal.

2.53 p.m.

Sir PATRICK FORD: In spite of the very moderate expression of reasons that have been put forward by the Lord Advocate, I feel bound to join in a protest against the amalgamation of the sheriffdoms of Perth and Angus. The sheriff is not only acting in a judicial capacity, but he also has administrative and, indeed, executive functions, and it seems to me that it is so even in this case. There is a wide opinion in legal and other circles in Scotland, apart from Government circles, that the amalgamation will put rather too much on one man even in this case. The whole principle seems to me to be derogatory to the status and dignity of the sheriffdoms of Scotland, an ancient institution which we prize. The sheriff is something like s. county court judge in his purely judicial capacity, but he also has administrative and executive functions to perform as well. I understand that the sheriff substitutes are not directly involved, but at the same time I remember on various occasions in this House when it was proposed to set up special tribunals to consider points arising out of new legislation, that I have suggested that we ought to have it put before the sheriffs substitute, we have been told that the sheriffs substitute already had as much as he could do. Incidentally I may say that he is also shockingly badly paid.
The sheriffs substitute is a man who has in his judicial capacity the confidence of the people. I have never heard any of the people, working men or otherwise, question his impartiality, his knowledge
of human nature, and his legal learning and common sense, and I should have thought, and have from time to time urged, that we ought rather to have more and better paid sheriff-substitutes and not have to set up special tribunals to deal with all sorts of odds and ends which we get in the administrative legislation in these days. If that is the opinion generally held regarding the sheriffs substitute surely it ought to come into the consideration given to the whole question of the sheriffdom, and there ought to be no cheese-paring. At a time when we are going to create new judges in England because the present judges cannot overtake the business, we are undertaking here a step which is undoubtedly a derogation from the dignity and efficiency of the office of sheriff principal, and it will cast a reflection on the position of sheriffs substitute, and will do a great disservice.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved—
That the Sheriffdom of Perth and Angus Order, 1934, dated the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Three o'Clock.